Jesus...look at the results. For gods sake, take off the rose colored glasses and take some responsibility for the people we ALL put in office.
Can someone explain why/ how the gov made law delaying sequestration until Mar 1 while they also authorized fed spending until Mar 28?
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Only in America can a President propose a law, get it passed, and then actively campaign against implementing it <a class="hashtag" action="hash" title="#Sequester">#Sequester</a> <a class="hashtag" action="hash" title="#hardball">#hardball</a></p>— Michael LaRosa (@MichaelLaRosaDC) <a href="https://twitter.com/MichaelLaRosaDC/status/306510075101585408" data-datetime="2013-02-26T21:00:25+00:00">February 26, 2013</a></blockquote> <script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Democratic leaders are on record in support of budget cuts and tax increases to avoid the sequester. Republican leaders are on record categorically rejecting tax increases to avoid the sequester. It doesn't get any more clear than that. If you have some information that contradicts this post it or stfu about "blind support", "rose colored glasses" "true partisan", etc.
Definition of Stalemate: 1. A situation in which further action is blocked; a deadlock. You can't have a stalemate without both parties playing their part. You can argue till your face turns blue that its all the republicans fault but it doesn't alter this simple reality. I could rephrase your statement. -- Republican leaders are on record in support of budget cuts and have already succumbed to tax increases in order to avoid the sequester. It doesn't get any more clear than that. If you have some information that contradicts this post it. Is that a correct assessment? I'm sure you think not. Doesn't matter. Whether your assessment is more correct or mine is or even if neither is....the bottom line is ***** ain't getting accomplished. Because they (ALL OF OUR GOVT LEADERS) think being right on every issue is more important than hurting the country in the process. I say, throw all of em out as a message to their successors to get it together, work together, compromise and figure it out. You seem to like deadlock and fiddling while Rome burns. I don't get it. p.s. Telling someone to STFU is unnecessary, rude, and wrong...and the sign of a closed mind. I might disagree vehemently against your positions but I would never say that to you or any American. Too many people have fought and died to defend that right including those in my own family.
This makes the incorrect assumption that no one wants to compromise. One side has made clear they don't; the other has routinely offered compromises - why would you throw out the baby with the bathwater? When one side says: no tax hikes! And the other says no spending cuts! And then that 2nd group says "let's do spending cuts with tax hikes!" and the first group says "no tax hikes!", that's not an equivalency. Let's remember that the sequester exists only because the GOP demanded cuts (and no tax hikes) to raise the debt ceiling and not default, and the two parties could only come with specifics for half the cuts demanded, so this this terrible solution was crated to prevent the country from going over the edge. Dems chose it as the only alternative to a ridiculous situation created by one party unwilling to compromise. The GOP was happy because they got spending cuts. On issue after issue, you see the same thing. To create an equivalency and say both parties do it ignores all the facts and the history of the last decade-plus. The Dems have routinely compromised on issue after issue, both under President Bush and since, from tax cuts to TARP. The GOP has been completely instrigent since Obama, except for short periods in December 2010 and December 2012 - when tons of stuff got accomplished in a bipartisan fashion.
It's amazing how clueless Michael is here. It was a bi-lateral agreement and put in place as a last resort. What kind of idiot is surprised that a President campaigns to try and avoid something he helped put in place only as a last resort. Michael is really ignorant on this stuff.
As has been pointed out, one group was willing to compromise and have spending cuts and tax hikes. The other group was not willing to compromise at all, and took a stand on no tax hikes at all. We didn't ALL elect the group that won't compromise at all. Pretty much only one party did.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/eMZC-Zifx90#t=0m10s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
It's funny to see that Commodore thinks that reposting tweets and picture out-of-context quotes somehow contributes to meaningful or quality discussion or somehow advances his position.
Commodore is on fire tonight. The liberals are now hilariously trying to argue that Obama didn't really mean that. Unbelievable, and stupid.
How about the fact that he would happily sign legislation replacing them? The only thing he is opposed to is legislation that would raise the debt by $1.2 trillion by making no cuts. Are you now for expanding the debt?
